Resident magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 146, 28 November 1868, Page 4

Resident magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM, MONDAY, NOV. 23,1868, S. L. Muller, Esq., 8.M., and His Honor W. H. Eyes, Esq., Superintendent.] POLICE CASES. BREACH OP THE PEACE. Moritz SMaark was charged by Inspector Emerson with committing a breach, of; the peace. ; ■ . ~ . . >; y-r Mr. Pitt, for defendant, said that the case must be dismissed’because no information had been laid.

The Bench ruled that it was not absolutely necessary. Mr. Pitt said in that case his client would plead guilty. , ......... : THe Chairman said it would be necessary S'J John J.'Paap, police constable, deposed that past pn|tß. preceding Wednesday, defendant jwais -walking ,■ past Lawrence,’ when some Swords took place. He heard Sklaark say,

you called me a b r, and he then struck Lawrence two blow's and knocked him down. By Mr. Pitt: ■There was no great disturbance ; it took no time and only* lasted about a minute.

By the Bench : There was some provocation, but I was not near enough to hear the whole of it. "When defendant struck Lawrence, he put up his hands. He did not kick him or strike him when down, but walked away. The defendant said he was guilty. He had nothing more to say. The Bench ordered defendant to enter into his own recognizances for £2O to keep the peace for six months. CRUELTY TO A HORSE. William Bragg was charged by the police with kicking, cruelly and wilfully beating a horse on the previous Wednesday. Defendant pleaded not guilty. John M. Hutcheson, stoi’ekceper, deposed that on Wednesday last he saw the defendant with a team of horses. He illuscd and kicked the leading horse in the belly more than once —violently and cruelly. It wanted to go into Davies’, and it was while in the act of pulling it back that the offence took place. Have seen him do so before. In reply to Mr. Eyes, Inspector Emmerson said defendant had not been brought before the bench before.

Mr. Eyes thought he should confine himself to the present instance. Examination continued: Mrs. Wemyss was passing at the time, and made a remark to me. I told her I had seen him do so before.

By defendant: Have seen you do so at my own corner by the printing office. Believe it was you. If not you, it was your brother; you are so much alike. Saw one of you beating your horse down by the manse, and heard the blows at Gunn’s. Defendant said he up with his foot and struck the horse on the shoulder, and that was all.

Mrs. Wemyss deposed that she saw defendant on Wednesday forenoon last; he ill used his horse. She followed him all the way from Mrs. Currie’s to Gunn’s, He whipped the leader most unmercifully, and when he got there he kicked it. lie had no difficulty in stopping them. He seized the shaft horse first, and pulled its mouth about unmercifully, and then went to the leader and kicked it viciously several times. I spoke to him about it, and said I should try to have him punished for it, and he nodded.

By defendant; You caught the shaft horse by the head and threw it back on its haunches, and kicked the other many times. They were standing perfectly still. You never ceased striking them over the legs with the whip, which made them swerve a little towards the telegraph post. Defendant did not wish to make any remarks, except that he only hit it with the side of his foot. The Chairman said there were two witnesses who swore to the offence. Defendant would be fined £l, with 14s costs. The fine was paid. ASSAULT. Phillip Lawrence was charged by Moritz Sklaark with committing an assault, on the previous Wednesday. Mr. Nelson appeared for defendant. Mr. Pitt, for the plaintiff, objected that defendant could not appear by counsel. He argued that, the charge being laid under the Offences against the Person Act, it was necessary for the defendant to appear in person, failing which he was liable to a penalty of 2 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Nelson said he had a right to appear, as the Bench sat to hear the case as Justices. The Bench ruled that the defendant should either appear or show very good reason, when the case could be adjourned. Mr. Nelson urged that this was not an indictable offence, but only a common assault. He referred to the 18th and 4/th section of the Justices of the Peace Act. The Bench held that the law was very clear on the subject, and it was no use Mr. Nelson arguing the matter. Defendant was bound to appear, or the case could be heard expan'te. Mr. Nelson would call Dr. Williams to prove that reasonable grounds existed foi preventing defendant’s appearance. If defendant appeared it should be by warrant only. He had advised him not to appear, because it would be prejudicial to his interests hereafter, as proceedings would be taken in another Court. Was Lawrence going to leave the country there would be good reason for compelling his appearance. The Bench said, that if he put Dr. Williams in the box to show defendant was unable, that would be sufficient, and they would allow an adjournment; or, they would proceed ex parte. These two courses only were open to them. Mr. Nelson said there were two witnesses who refused ‘ to appear unless subpoenaed, and there was no power under the Justices

of the Peace Act to issue them. He wished the Court to adjourn for an hour to admit of that being done. The Court could not agree with this, as a summons could be taken out at any time. Mr. Nelson would submit the names of the witnesses, but not to the counsel for complainant, as he did not wish him to know who they were. Mr. Pitt protested against the unusual course taken by his friend in this case. He then called

John Kennedy, police-constable, who proved the service of the summons. He knew defendant, and served him with a copy in bed on Thursday. By Mr. Nelson : Had compared the copy with the original, which he left in the office. Will swear to it. [The two were compared.] Do not generally fill the summons; sometimes do; can write different hands; wrote the endorse on this one when I came back from serving it. Have signed it in Court. I compared them myself, according to the best of my ability. Defendant was in bed ; he was quite aware what it was, and asked mo to send it over to you. Mr. Nelson : A very good thing for him to do.

llobcrt Eohinson, farmer, deposed that on AVednosday he saw the complainant and defendant between the buildings and Highstreet.

Mr. Nelson wished the Court to he cleared of all witnesses, including the plaintiff. Mr. Pitt objected to his client being ordered out of Court, and remarked on the unprecedented nature of the application. The Bench held that the plaintiff had a right to be present, and remain beside his solicitor. Other witnesses were to leave the Court, but was not aware of any power it possessed of stating what witnesses should be called, and in what order. Mr. Nelson then asked if he would order Sklaark out of Court while llobinson gave his evidence.

Mr. Pitt declined, and would not allow these imputations against his client. Mr. Nelson hoped he would remember this hereafter.

Mr. Pitt said that, on account of the frequent interruptions, he must insist that Mr Nelson had no right or standing in the Court, and asked the Bench to rule accordingly at once. The Bench held that the objection was valid ; Air. Nelson could not appear for defendant, as the case was being proceeded with ex parte. After some remarks from Mr. Nelson,

Mr. Eyes said he would refuse to hear another word from him on the subject, as he had elected to proceed ex parte while he had the option. (Applause.) The protracted discussion was very objectionable. The Chairman agreed with every word that had fallen from Mr. Eyes.

Mr. Nelson then left the Court. Examination continued : Lawrence was standing by the dray talking to me, when Sklaark walked past humming a tune. When he had got about 10 yards past, — [Here defendant entered the Court accompanied by his solicitor.] —Lawrence said the man’s mad. Sklaark said Defendant to the Bench : I’m hear now. Mr. Nelson said he had now produced his client, and he appeared for him. Mr. Eyes said the Bench was going on with the case ex parte , and would not be trifled with. Mr. Nelson showed a want of civility to the Bench. (Applause.) Mr. Nelson said he would apply to the Supreme Court to stay any decision the Bench came to. The Chairman said the Bench would not be intimidated by any threat of Supreme Courts or A ppeals. The counsel could take any course he thought fit in the interests of his client.

Mr. Eyes said the Bench had proceeded so far ex parte, and would only be stultifying themselves by going back. Mr. Nelson thought it was a singular thing to say the defendant could not be heard when he was present. Mr. Pitt proceeded with the examination of the witness, who said: Sklaark turned round and asked Lawrence if he was alluding to him. Defendant told him to go away ; he wanted to have nothing to say to him ; he was lower than him ; they went on ; Lawrence told him he would kick him into the river; did not see him strike Sklaark ; he pushed him, and put his hand upon him. After saying he would kick him into the river, he shoved him away. Sklaark was not attempting to strike him. Defendant called Sklaark a b r; Sklaark then struck him ; he did not previously use any bad language; it all proceeded from his calling Sklaark a madman ; I was standing close to him; did not see him strike the pipe out of his mouth ; just turned round to my horses and saw defendant falling; that was immediately after making use of the expression. Moritz Sklaark, draper deposed that on

Wednesday last he met defendant outside in the Square ; he was passing him casually; had no conversation with him previously, but was smoking my pipe. I was sor 6 yards off him, and said nothing to him. He said to last witness, look at this madman going by. I went up to him and asked him if he was alluding to me ; he said, yes. I said, can’t you leave me alone in the streets; you do what you like at me in my own house ; if you don’t leave me alone in the streets I shall bring you before Dr. Muller. He told me to go away, and do what I liked, or he would kick me in the river. I had not previously given him any provocation whatever; am not on friendly terras with him. He has annoyed me day and night for the last three months; has called me a son of a bitch, and used other bad language. He pushed me, and I lost my presence of mind. Had been 14 years among Englishmen, and was never charged with breaking the laws. The Defendant requested that P. C. Paap should be called. The Bench : The Court do not know that you are present, Lawrence; Perhaps you will call him then.

The Chairman said the Bench considered there was no assault committed in this case, and therefore the complaint would be dismissed.

Mr. Nelson, for defendant, then applied, that as his client was obliged to keep his house because he was in bodily fear, that the sum should be increased, as it was insufficient, tiklaark had stated that morning, as he was walking past defendant’s house, that he would be his hangman yet. The disturbance did not commence with Lawrence. The Bench held that the bond was sufficient. CIVIL CASES. DODSON V. THOMPSON AND ANDERSON. Mr. Pitt appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Nelson for defendant. A claim to recover the value of a cask of beer.

Henry Dodson, brewer, deposed that he had had dealings for over a twelve month with defendants, and had since rereived £3O, being the amount he then thought due ; he afterwards found a cask was omitted, and wrote a letter to them the same night. The amount paid was for five hhds. He was now suing for a cask unpaid for. He could show the Court how the error arose. The balance was for a cask. £3 lbs., and 6s. vinegar.

Mr. Nelson would apply for a non-suit, on the ground that a general account had not been furnished.

13v Mr. Nelson ; Do not keep my books, hut by my servant. I produce my books. Have not been paid by Anderson. They bad no contra account against me ; if there was, it would appear there. Remember him coming and paying the money. He asked me what lie owed. The account was furnished on December 31. He may have said he never got it. Have heard that they had dissolved partnerships. Will not swear that 1 bad the account or the before me.

James Jelly 'man, carter, deposed that he sometimes carted beer for defendants, and in September 1867, took them a 34-gallon cask from the brewery, and some for Gee at the same time. It was not a hhd.

James Craing deposed that he was malsterin the employ of Dodson and Ball in August last. The entry to Messrs. Thompson & Co. is in my writing. Gave a cask to Jelly man to deliver. Remember a empty cask coming back. In consequence of some remarks from Mr. Nelson, the Bench said the Court would not be treated with disrespect.

Mr. Nelson claimed a non-suit, and called

James Anderson, who deposed that he was lately a partner with Thompson, at Waihopai, and dealt for beer with Dodson. Did not recollect getting or seeing an account. On 21 st January last saw Dodson. Thought we owed him £27 or £2B, but supposed we were mistaken; as he said we owed him £3O. Paid him that sum. Thompson took on himself the payment of the accounts. Dodson did not furnish me with a statement of account. I got no discount. Was generally at home, and knew what was consumed. Had dealings with him previously. Could not swear we had any before August 9, nor that I paid him before this, but don’t think so. Never paid the carter. Sometimes beer was left for Gees. Did not keep any account of what was received. There was no statement of accounts made out in his office that I remember. There was no talk of bottles due to me...;

By Mr. Pitt: Received a letter complaining of the error after I had paid the money ; it was in the evening, but don’t remember the day. Can’t swear to the quantity we had.

Mr. Nelson urged that there had been no general account furnished, and the delivery was not proved. Mr Pitt replied. The Court held that a receipt was good prima facice evidence, but not final. Pie considered the delivery proved. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £4 2s. 6d., with £2 9s. costs. In reply to Mr. Nelson, the Bench said that the amount was below the sum for which an appeal could be granted. DODSON AND BALL V. GEE. Mr. Pitt applied for an adjournment at the request of the defendant. Granted. NORGROVE BROS. V. WALL. An action to recover £l2 19s 3d. A set-off of £9 3s. was not admitted. Mr. Nelson appeared for plaintiffs. Horace Norpmove deposed that he had been in partnership with his brothers since 1861. Oscar.and himself were the firm. They hale! a contract in conjunction with defendant at the Marlborough Hotel, Believe it was a joint tender. Our part of it came to £4O. Mr. Henderson paid us at settlement in Wall’s presence. A great change was made owing to the progress of the work, which was tendered and paid for separately. The present sum was the amount at . which Wall took the contract as a whole. We performed the work to the satisfaction of the architect. Hid it for Wall. The front necessitated more work being done, and he was informed of that; we charged accordingly. The £l2 was a lump sum to be paid at he same time. He paid £8 of it, Mr. Henderson saying he would pay the remainder if the architect said he should do so. Mr. Douslin refused to certify to it, saying Wall should pay for it. By defendant; Don’t remember the measurements; it was a lump sum. The receipt shown was given by me. You said Henderson was to pay me the other £4.

Mr. Wall said there was no contract entered into at all. He could show that all the work done did not amount to more than £6 7s. by measurement. Examination continued: I dispute every item in the set-off, and will not acknowledge anything in it. There are some which are my brother’s. Oscar Norgrove deposed that he was a partner with the last witness. The original contract was paid. Some changes were made. I contracted with Wall for the extras. I told him I would not do my portion for less than £l2; he did not say it was too much. Could not say there was not any words about it. The account for £9 3s. was not due against the firm ; some was due by me privately; those are marked. Got no more after that, as lam not in the habit of drinking. May have had six bottles more than those marked, or nine altogether. jaoj^jk partner, and has nothing to do with it. By defendant: The conversation took place in the billiard room. The roof may have been done. You said you would pav the £l2 as a bargain, I have left off paying my father’s accounts; he says he knows very well he has had the goods. The case was adjourned till Monday next for the production of Mr. Douslin’s evidence.

EDUCATION BOARD V. BLIZZARD. An action to recover £1 for education rate. Inspector Emmerson proved the case. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for amount, and costs 11s.